You do not have JavaScript enabled. It is required to use webDiplomacy fully.

Forum

A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.

Start a new discussion in the public forum

Post a new thread

If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
We get a lot of feature requests. If your feature request isn't already on our issue tracker,
then the best place to ask is the forum. This will help us gauge support for your ideas, before we add it to the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.

I want to learn how to code, but am having trouble deciding where to start. Their are many free resources, online classes, boot camps, etc. I would prefer to teach myself, but lack the knowledge to know what language I should be learning first and so on. Any tips from the experienced code writers here on WebDip?

Is there a rule against holding a stalemate indefinitely even though the situation is clear? I think he's hoping the rest of us give up and leave, which if it isn't against the rules yet then it should be.

I don't particularly care for PPSC. But saw that another thread was having this discussion as a sidebar and thought it fair to start a discussion thread. There is reasonable support for PPSC and regardless of the majority opinion the minority's should be heard.

I don’t know if this has been suggested but:1. In draws have everyone alive share the pot equally (As they should because SoS is garbage)2. In a solo, the soloist gains a portion of the pot equal to 18* divided by the number of centers controlled by the soloist or survivors (but not neutral centers or those of resigned powers) and the survivors split the remainder proportionally based on their center count.*Or however many

I wasn't a huge fan of it, but we should do a going away game for the World Map, similar to the Inaugural Known World 901 game we're running. Same deal, we get a mod to make the game the last one before they officially shut it off.

This game: http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=187862Attempted Daju to Makuran with Al-Qatta'i support. Somehow, the support is showing as cut, even though no unit attacked Al-Qatta'i. Also, the orders page is showing an error. Please help.

I'm gonna give my 2 cents on this game, as it looks like it'll be fun: gameID=188830first year: pretty standard. Both sides played my favored openings. I disagree with Austria's fleet build in Trieste. With France doing a Northern opening, you need an army in BUD, so you can bullrush Scandinavia via StP. You already have a fleet in the South that can take TUN, and hold it with a couple good guesses for a fleet next year.Spring 1902: a terrible sequence for France involving PIE. I prefer moving into Spain first with MAR, so you can guess to bounce PIE out of MAR, if he moves into PIE. It avoids a situation like this and still gives you the guess. In the meantime, Austria has completely abandoned Germany. France should have all of Germany by next year.Fall 1902: This turn was completely expected. MUN-Kiel ensured France could not take both of them this turn, and taking Warsaw ensured the extra build. Now it will be interesting to see what Austria does with Warsaw. He could either try to stall France out in Germany, or head to the North.Builds: Expected builds.Spring 1903: interesting decision to move into North Africa rather than Western Med. If France had moved into Tyrr, it works out far worse I think. France's army in BOH is about to cause some serious damage. Austria can't handle it effectively. France will take BER, and hold onto Kiel and MUN. This game is looking bad for Austria now.Fall 1903: France's moves were excellent. There was no way for Austria to take MUN, and he guaranteed capture of BER and Kiel. Furthermore, there was no chance for Austria to slip into the Mid Atlantic Ocean. I'm entirely unsure of what should have been done by Austria, even knowing 100% what France would do.

Ezio, I am a completelly noob at 1 x 1 so I have a question to you as you stated the north opening is one of your favored openings: how do you win as France without having Tun? Or do you think that France can take Tun later with this opening?

@rd, usually Austria doesn't commit too heavily to having fleets, for the problems shown in this game, so you usually can retake Tun. If you can't, you should be able to break them in the North and just crush your opponent.

I would actually be fine with not having a concede button. I think it might lead to players conceding too early. I think it's alright to have a game take a little bit longer just to ensure it's played properly to the end.

Falcon, in a 1v1 game does it matter if someone concedes early? I understand in a multiplayer game, but if someone concedes early they are just harming themselves. Also, in 1v1's the games tend to snowball quickly, so it is possible to see how the game is going to go a year or two before it actually ends.

Yeah, it snowballs quickly, and you see it coming, but you should still do your best.

It sucks to win if our opponent rolls over and gives up... But also fighting to the bitter end can sometimes earn you a much greater victory. (Someone must have stories of a country down to 1 SC who managed a solo..) And while this may be rarer in 1v1s, it takes far less time investment to see what happens.

What is a 1v1 game where resignation is forbidden? That's like saying you shouldn't be allowed to concede in chess when your opponent has mate in 3. Those last few moves are just a waste of everyone's time, as both players are double and triple checking to make certain they didn't miss anything. If it's not a live game, this can take weeks.

I seriously doubt you will ever be able to predict more than 1/2 move victories. And the calculation will take linger than entering the orders would.

Also in Chess, players can make mistakes. I've forced many a stalemate against players who need to work on their end-game. (And if you just resign, they'd never have gotten a chance to work on their end game!)

1v1 diplomacy is actually a great way of working on the end-game of a normal dip game. It is often 1 player racing towards 18 while a fee opponents scramble together a defecne. But it can take months to get there, while 1v1 variants let you do that in mere minutes. (And months of game play to end in a bad stalemate or good draw isn't great...)

I'd argue that even if the last few moves are inevitable, the practice you get is never wasted.

As for double and triple checking, i've never played a 1v1 which takes weeks. Each player simply finalises their moves, and the turns procede much faster, even with a 24 hour phase you get several turns done each day. (One person goes to sleep and wakes up within the 24 hour time limit, so it is no problem - check and double check your moves, and you're still done in 10 minutes at most...)

Only if both players are choosing to ready asap will the game continue as quickly as you describe. Furthermore, there are games where the stalemate line has been reached, and with the extra units they have they just run around capturing the hard to reach supply centers. It can certainly take multiple years.If you, as a player, would rather have your opponent play out the endgame, that is your choice. Why should you should force players to enter the moves when the game is over, and to make them sit in their loss for longer than is necessary?

There is no waiting for messages to be sent back and forth between allies or enemies, no stalling because you want to think over what someone said, or make them think you're goong to nmr by only entering your mobes at the last minute. No chit-chat. You just enter your moves and ready them. It might be only twice or three times a day you look at a game in a bog-standrad classic 24 hours/phase. That would usually mean two or three phases in a 1v1.

@bo, i do like that more... But then what happens when they concede, you refuse, they simply nmr.

You play on? Do you force them to protect their reliability rating by entering moves forever? Do you rush them and take 18 as fast as possible, or taunt them by moving away from stalemate lines??

@Ezio, most stalemate lines can't be held without 15-17 units. You may possibly have all your units tied up in the line and be unable to capture the rest... That would be a risk, or sending units back could let your opponent break the line. I'm not convinced at all.

I think we should foster a culture of players fighting to the bitter end, until they are really experienced and able to see it coming from a turn away. And even then one turn doesn't take days or weeks.

If you know you're about to win, then you're likely to enter your moves immediately after seeing the board (and just possibly double check them before readying)

Hey Kiddos someone has to carry Krellin's weight around here! Join up for the greatest So-N-So game yet!!!! No safe spaces,no bitching or crying allowed! Leave your feelings at the sign up button because they will get destroyed!!! We need to continue the legacy of helping bring people closer together via insults!!